Allowed

V.P.Radhakrishnan v. Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu Taluk & Others

Kerala HC12 Oct 2011WP(C)/385/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition directed at revenue officers. The petitioner held land originally assigned under Pat No.PF 26/71, which was later sold to him. During a resurvey, the land was incorrectly classified as Government puramboke under an incorrect survey number. The court held that the Tahsildar is competent to correct this error in the records and facilitate a rectification deed.

What did the court decide?

Directed that it will be open to the petitioner to make an appropriate application to the First Respondent for correction of survey records to enable execution of a rectification deed.

V.P.Radhakrishnan Vs Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu Taluk & Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 385 of 2011(W)

¶6

----------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

V.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, PULLAL VEETTIL, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PULLUVAZHI, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

----------------------

¶13

1. TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR – 683 542.

¶14

2. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

¶15

3. SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶17

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

SCL.

¶20

WP(C).No. 385 of 2011(W).

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO.PF 26/71 DATED 11.7.1972.

¶24

P1(A): TRUE COPY OF MAHASAR TO PATTA NO.PF 26/71 DATED 11.7.1972.

¶25

P2: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED BY PATTA ASSIGNEE IN FAVOUR OF SHRI. GEORGE.

¶26

P3: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED BY GEORGE IN FAVOUR OF SMT. LALITHA.

¶27

P4: TRUE COPY OF EXCHANGE DEED EXECUTED BY LALITHA IN FAVOUR OF HER SISTER SMT. SUVARNI KUNJAMMA.

¶28

P5: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED BY SMT. SUVARNI KUNJAMMA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶29

P6: TRUE COPY OF CO-RELATION REGISTER.

¶30

P7: TRUE COPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT.

¶31

P8: TRUE COPY OF WRONG LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR.

¶32

P8(A): TRUE COPY OF WRONG LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO PETITIONER.

¶33

P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY SURVEY SUPERINTEND REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE SURVEY ADALTH ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION.

¶34

P10: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT – ADDL. TAHASILDAR.

¶35

P11: TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶36

P12: TRUE COPY OF NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE GRANTED BY LEGAL HEIR OF ORIGINAL ASSIGNEE.

¶37

P13: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SENT TO CHIEF MINISTER AND OTHERS.

¶38

P14: TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORTS CARRIED BY LEADING NEWSPAPERS REPORTGING PUBLIC CAMPAIGN ORGANISED BY PETITIONER.

¶39

P15: TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORTS CARRIED BY LEADING NEWSPAPERS REPORTING TRANSFER OF OFFICERS FROM KUNNATHUNADU TALUK ON COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER.

¶40

P16: TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY TALUK SURVEYOR.

¶41

P17: TRUE COPY OF REPLY OF ADDL. TAHASILDAR TO ENQUIRY BY CHIEF MINISTER.

¶42

P18: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT FILED BEFORE RDO.

¶43

P19: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.1.2010 ISSUED BY ADDL. TAHSILDAR REJECTING APPLICATION OF PETITIONER.

¶44

P20: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL SOUGHT TO BE FILED BEFORE SURVEY SUPERINTEND.

¶45

P21: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS IN PRE- LITIGATION- PETITION NO.1/2010 FILED BEFORE THE LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, KUNNATHUNADU.

¶46

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

SCL.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶51

¶52

W.P.(C) No. 385 of 2011 W

¶53

¶54

Dated this the 12^th day of October, 2011

¶55

J U D G M E N T

¶56

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶57

Ext.P1 is the patta issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Assignment, Perumbavoor in favour of one Thevan, S/o.Painkili, whereby 4.25 Ares of land (10.5 cent) in Survey No.323/1A/1 of Rayamangalam village was assigned to him. The property was alienated by the assignee in favour of strangers and eventually, by Ext.P5, sale deed No.1408/2002 dated 29.07.2002 of the SRO, Perumbavoor, the property was purchased by the petitioner.

¶58

It is on record that, in the meanwhile, re-survey of the property was completed and though the re-survey number assigned was 124/8, the re-survey number shown in the document is 124/6. Petitioner also submits that as per the re-survey records, the property in Survey No.124/8 was shown as Government puramboke and, therefore, petitioner

¶59

W.P.(C) No.385/2011

¶60

: 2 :

¶61

made application to the Survey Adalat for correction of the said mistake. That application of the petitioner was rejected

¶62

by Ext.P9 order.

¶63

Thereupon, petitioner submitted Ext.P10

¶64

application to the second respondent on which the second respondent obtained Ext.P11 report of the Village Officer. In the report of the Village Officer also, the fact that the property was in Survey No.323/1A/1 of Rayamangalam village and was assigned as per Ext.P1 and that the said property was eventually transferred to the petitioner and that he is in possession of the same, are admitted. It is also stated that, though the property in the possession of the petitioner is the one in RS.No.124/8, as per the re-survey records, the property in R.S.No.124/8 has been described as Government puramboke . On this basis, the report states that, to remedy the grievance of the petitioner, the re-survey records should be corrected and rectification deed should be executed by the petitioner, correcting the mistake of the survey number

¶65

W.P.(C) No.385/2011

¶66

: 3 :

¶67

occurring in Ext.P5 title deed.

¶68

Ext.P16 is also a report made by the Taluk Surveyor, which also reiterates the aforesaid observations of the village officer. It appears that the matter was finally referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer and was again transmitted to the second respondent, who issued Ext.P19 which also reads as under:-

¶69

“ക�നത�ന�ട� ത�ല�ക�ല ര�യമ�ഗല� വ�ല�ജ�ല ല��ക�19-ല റ�സര!വ 124/6-ല 4.24 ആര വസ�ത � ക�റ�പ�പട�യ�!ല സബ� രജ�സ�+ട�ര ഓഫ�സ�!ല 1408/02 ന�ബര ആധ�ര+പക�ര� ത�ങളക� സ�ദ�ച�ട �ളത�ണല��. ലമല ന�ബര +പമ�ണ+പക�രമ �ള വസ�ത � ഭ�മ�യ�!ല കകവശ� പര�ലശ�ധ�ചത�ല റ�സര!വ 124/8-ല പ�ര;മ�യ�� കകവശ� ഉളത�യ� ത�ല�ക� സരലവയര റ�ലപ�രട� !=യ�ത�ട�ണട�. റ�സര!വ റ�ക�ര? �കള +പക�ര� സര!വ 124/8-ല!പട 3.80 ആര വസ�ത� സരക�ര പ�റ�ലപ�ക�ണ�. ആധ�ര+പക�ര� 124/6ല!പട വസ�ത�വ�ണ� ലഭ�ച�ട�ള!തങ�ല�� കകവശ+പക�ര� 124/8 എന� ക�ണ�ന�. ഈ വസ�ത� പഴയ സര!വ 323/1 A/1ല!പട 20 ഏകര 44 !സന� പ�റ�ലപ�ക� സലത�ന�ന�� 4.24 ആര പ�.എഫ� 26/71 ന�ബറ�യ� പ��വഴ� കര ഒലര�ട�ല കപങ�ള� മകന ലതവന എനയ�ളക� പടയ� ലഭ�ച�ട �ളത�� ട� പടയ+പക�രമ�ള വസ�ത� ത!നയ�ണ� വഴ�ക� വഴ�യ�ള ആധ�രങള +പക�ര� ത�ങളക� ലഭ�ച�ട�ള!തന�� ക�ണ�ന�. ഈ വസ�ത� റ�സര!വ റ�ക�ര? �കള�ല !തറ�യ� പ�റ�ലപ�ക� എന� ല=രത�ട�ളത�യ� ക�ണ�ന�. ഈ സ�ഹ=രNത�ല മ�ന +പമ�ണ കക� റ�സര!വ സ�+പണ� മ�നപ�!ക റ�സര!വ !തറ� ത�ര�ത�നത�ന� അലപക സമരപ�ച� പടയ ഭ�മ� ആക� മ�റ�യത�ന� ലശഷ� കകവശമ�ള ഭ�മ�യ�!ട ശര�യ�യ സര!വ ന�ബറ�കള ല=രത� ത�ര�ത�ധ�ര� ഉണ�ക�യ�ല മ�+തലമ

¶70

W.P.(C) No.385/2011

¶71

: 4 :

¶72

ത�ങള�!ട അലപക +പക�ര� നടപട� സS�കര�ക �വ�ന ന�രവ�ഹമ�ള� എന�ള വ�വര� അറ�യ�ക�ന�.”

¶73

Reading of Ext.P19 shows that the second

¶74

respondent also accepts the wrong classification of the petitioner's property in Survey No.124/8 as a Government puramboke and the requirement of correction of the said mistake. Even at that stage, the grievance of the petitioner remained as such and, therefore, finally he moved the Lok Adalat by Ext.P21. In Ext.P21, the Tahsildar and the Superintendent of Re-Survey, respondents 1 and 3, were made parties. As is seen from Ext.P21, before the Adalat, the third respondent took the stand that he is incompetent to deal with the complaint of the petitioner and that the first respondent is the competent authority. Though the case was deferred for the appearance of the first respondent, it appears that the first respondent did not turn up before the Lok Adalat, as a result of which, the complaint was finally closed. It was thereupon the writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents to correct the survey records pertaining to

¶75

W.P.(C) No.385/2011

¶76

: 5 :

¶77

4.24 Ares of land situated in R.S.No.124/8 of Block No.19 of Rayamangalam village as patta land.

¶78

Respondents have filed a counter affidavit and a reply affidavit also has been filed.

¶79

I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶80

Ext.P11 report of the Village Officer, Ext.P16 report of the Taluk Surveyor and Ext.P19 order passed by the second respondent show the factual position that the property in the possession of the petitioner is in R.S.No.124/8, that the corresponding survey number of the property is survey No.323/1A/1, that the property was assigned as per Ext.P1, and that the petitioner acquired the property as per Ext.P5. It is also obvious that R.S.No.124/6 mentioned in Ext.P5 is a mistake, necessitating execution of rectification deed. Therefore, there obviously is a mistake in the re-survey records and that the entry puramboke against the property in Survey No.124/8 in the possession of the petitioner needs to

¶81

W.P.(C) No.385/2011

¶82

: 6 :

¶83

be corrected. As is event from Ext.P21, proceedings of the Lok Adalat, it is the specific stand of the third respondent that the first respondent is the authority competent to rectify the mistake in question. In that view of the matter, it is necessary for the first respondent to correct the mistake.

¶84

From the counter affidavit filed, it is seen that one of the objections raised by the respondents is that an application for rectification should be made by the holder of the property before finalisation of the re-survey, viz. vendor of the petitioner. Despite having perused the Survey and Boundaries Act and Rules framed thereunder, I see no such prescription in the Rules prescribed that the application should be made only by a person, as contended by the respondents. In such circumstances, I see no substance in the objection raised and overrule the same.

¶85

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to make an appropriate application to the first respondent for correction of the survey

¶86

W.P.(C) No.385/2011

¶87

: 7 :

¶88

records pertaining to R.S.No.124/8 (Survey No.323/1A/1) of Rayamangalam village having an extent of 4.24 Ares to the extent which is indicated as puramboke land. Once re-survey records are so corrected, it will be open to the petitioner to execute necessary rectification deed so that the mistake of re-survey number occurring in Ext.P5 will also have to be rectified.

¶89

Sd/-

¶90

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶91

aks/13/10

¶92

//True copy//

¶93

P.A to Judge

V.P.Radhakrishnan v. Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu Taluk & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Radhakrishnan v. Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu Taluk & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumesh Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Lathika Kumari Vs State of Kerala and Others

Renju Alex Vs the Chief Forest Conservator, Kannur

Indus Consumer Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.

Nikhil Johnson Vs the Director Ministry of Minority

P.K.Ashraff Vs the District Collector,Kasargode